 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / June 2005f.cking stupid photographers
You're all so f.cking stupid you should be put out of your misery... You're stupider than slugs... > You're all so f.cking stupid you should be put out of your misery... > > You're stupider than slugs... welcome to the club > You're all so f.cking stupid you should be put out of your misery... > > You're stupider than slugs... Intelligently spoken...(??) > > You're all so f.cking stupid you should be put out of your misery... > > > > You're stupider than slugs... > > Intelligently spoken...(??) Yes, the comparative of 'stupid' is 'stupider'. >You're all so f.cking stupid you should be put out of your misery... > >You're stupider than slugs... Do you do children's parties? Michael Scarpitti posted: >You're all so ******* stupid you should be put out of your misery... >You're stupider than slugs... ..that's two complete wastes of bandwidth so far.. Michael, we've seen your 'work' - and you don't belong among 'photographers' (be they stupid or not) *anyway*. So why are you here? Trying to get back at people who have shot down your stupidity in the past? May I suggest that during your next visit to the psych, you show them this stuff - don't forget that it's important for your recovery to be *honest* about your actions... > Michael Scarpitti posted: > >You're all so ******* stupid you should be put out of your misery... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So why are you here? Trying to get back at people who have shot down > your stupidity in the past? Are you still listening to your Liberace albums? > May I suggest that during your next visit to the psych, you show them > this stuff - don't forget that it's important for your recovery to be > *honest* about your actions... >Are you still listening to your Liberace albums? That's it? Your best troll comes down to that? All your intelligence and wit crammed into that effort? Why doncha post some more of that grainy, flat, poorly composed, godawful crap *you* stupidly call 'photographs'? We need a good laugh. I do better work in my sleep than a.sholes like you or Sexton do in a year. f.cking waterfalls and trees. And it doesn't nmatter anyway....I can argue with the best minds on the planet...and beat them.... > >Are you still listening to your Liberace albums? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We need a good laugh. >And it doesn't nmatter anyway.. N-n-no, n-n-it n-n-doesn't n-matter.. (In other words, wipe the dribble off your chin, Michael.) We can all see examples of your maturity, debating skills, logic and grasp of language above, and in many similar posts across the Internet. And your photography? Let me see, where are those links to your images again...? Why don't *you* post them? Afraid? (Mmmm, troll sandwich..!) > >And it doesn't nmatter anyway.. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And your photography? Let me see, where are those links to your > images again...? Why don't *you* post them? Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks... > Afraid? > > (Mmmm, troll sandwich..!) > Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what anyone > else thinks... No single person can make one. Then why bother posting tripe and blather in this NG???  SignatureJohn McWilliams > > Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what anyone > > else thinks... > > No single person can make one. I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... > Then why bother posting tripe and blather in this NG??? It's neither. I'm here to tell photographers how stupid they are.... John McWilliams wrote: > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what anyone > > else thinks... > > No single person can make one. I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... > Then why bother posting tripe and blather in this NG??? It's neither. I'm here to tell photographers how stupid they are.... -------- PLONK >I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over >rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... [...] >I'm here to tell photographers how stupid they are.... You know, I'd far rather spend my time taking pictures of waterfalls than spend it telling other people they're stupid on an Internet forum. The former may be clicheed, but it does at least get one out into the fresh air. The latter is just, well, sad. BTW, here's my latest waterfall picture for you to foam about. It even includes some water running over rocks, and it was taken with a medium format camera, which you seem to detest, on Fujichrome Velvia, which I seem to recall you regard as "sh.t". Should give you plenty of ammunition for calling me stupid. I hope you hate it as much as you seem to want to: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/NorthCreek.jpg> >>I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over >>rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > air. > The latter is just, well, sad. Actually, there is nothing that is more cliche than Uranium's brand of trolling. He's as old and as boring as they come. Does he think we've never seen trolls with no life before?? Gee...how original. f.cking stupid photographers want high-saturation films for nature photography -- even though the colors of nature are generally low in saturation f.cking stupid photographers want autofocus cameras -- even though this means lens quality has to suffer as a result f.cking stupid photographers want motor-drive cameras -- even though it hinders capturing the decisive moment f.cking stupid photographers want image stabilization lenses -- even though the extra elements necessary to add this feature soak up light and reduce contrast f.cking stupid photographers want big-ratio zoom lenses -- even though these lenses suck f.cking stupid photographers want the lowest possible prices -- even though it means they will get ripped off by some schmucks in NYC In short, everything f.cking stupid photographers want is WRONG! > >>I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over > >>rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Does he think we've never seen trolls with no life before?? > Gee...how original. >f.cking stupid photographers want high-saturation films for nature >photography -- even though the colors of nature are generally low in >saturation There are no high saturation B&W sheet films. >f.cking stupid photographers want autofocus cameras -- even though this >means lens quality has to suffer as a result No available in 4x5 >f.cking stupid photographers want motor-drive cameras -- even though it >hinders capturing the decisive moment Not available in 4x5 >f.cking stupid photographers want image stabilization lenses -- even >though the extra elements necessary to add this feature soak up light >and reduce contrast Not available in 4x5 >f.cking stupid photographers want big-ratio zoom lenses -- even though >these lenses suck Not available in 4x5 >f.cking stupid photographers want the lowest possible prices -- even >though it means they will get ripped off by some schmucks in NYC Ebay, KEH, MPEX, B&H - no problems. >In short, everything f.cking stupid photographers want is WRONG! Then, by your standards, I'm doing everything right??? Does that make me a Super Genius, like Wiley Coyote??? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Then, by your standards, I'm doing everything right??? Does that make me a > Super Genius, like Wiley Coyote??? Yes! But you might not yet be aware that the person you replied to isn't a photographer, isn't educated well, and posts only to be argumentative. When he loses his (mostly specious) arguments, he resorts to name calling and minor tantrums. I am trying to restrain myself to never again respond to the boor. Pray for me! SignatureJohn McWilliams > I am trying to restrain myself to never again respond to the boor. Pray > for me! Why don't we just nominate him to be the poster child for Planned Parenthood? ken >> Then, by your standards, I'm doing everything right??? Does that make me a >> Super Genius, like Wiley Coyote??? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I am trying to restrain myself to never again respond to the boor. Pray >for me! Yeah, but, he's always good for a laugh or two. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Yeah, but, he's always good for a laugh or two. The laugh is on me, bubba..the laugh is on me... >> Yeah, but, he's always good for a laugh or two. > > The laugh is on me, bubba..the laugh is on me... You got that right...think before you type, Mikey. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com : > Then, by your standards, I'm doing everything right??? Does that make me a : > Super Genius, like Wiley Coyote??? : Yes! But you might not yet be aware that the person you replied to isn't : a photographer, isn't educated well, and posts only to be argumentative. : When he loses his (mostly specious) arguments, he resorts to name : calling and minor tantrums. : I am trying to restrain myself to never again respond to the boor. Pray : for me! It isn't hard. The best part is that if enough people in this news group joins in and ignores the troll he'll pitch a couple of hissy fits and then go away. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- > f.cking stupid photographers want high-saturation films for nature > photography -- even though the colors of nature are generally low in > saturation Who cares what film a photographer chooses for what he wants to do. As for colors in nature, there are spectacular colors in many, many places. > f.cking stupid photographers want autofocus cameras -- even though this > means lens quality has to suffer as a result Wrong. I would agree that most AF cameras are more difficult to focus manually; but the lens quality itself is not compromised. > f.cking stupid photographers want motor-drive cameras -- even though it > hinders capturing the decisive moment Wrong > f.cking stupid photographers want image stabilization lenses -- even > though the extra elements necessary to add this feature soak up light > and reduce contrast Hardly. A comparison of a non IS and and IS lens from the same vendor that are otherwise very much the same show a slight loss in lp/mm. Much less sharpness loss there than in handholding at low speed. As to light loss it is negligeable. > f.cking stupid photographers want big-ratio zoom lenses -- even though > these lenses suck You're correct on this one; but serious photographers don't get high ratio zooms. Many stick to FFL lenses. > f.cking stupid photographers want the lowest possible prices -- even > though it means they will get ripped off by some schmucks in NYC B&H, Adorama. Great NYC stores. Honest, reliable, helpful. > In short, everything f.cking stupid photographers want is WRONG! You must be stupidist shmoe in existance. Just because the world has moved on from your notions of what is right, doesn't mean everybody else needs to stop. Let's just say the rest of us are dynamic and have more range. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. C'mon, Alan, enough already. Please. john > > f.cking stupid photographers want high-saturation films for nature > > photography -- even though the colors of nature are generally low in > > saturation > > Who cares what film a photographer chooses for what he wants to do. As > for colors in nature, there are spectacular colors in many, many places. This just shows how f.cking stupid you are. In nature, pure colors are seldom encountered. > > f.cking stupid photographers want autofocus cameras -- even though this > > means lens quality has to suffer as a result > > Wrong. I would agree that most AF cameras are more difficult to focus > manually; but the lens quality itself is not compromised. Again, proving how idiotic you are. See: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c012.html > > f.cking stupid photographers want motor-drive cameras -- even though it > > hinders capturing the decisive moment > > Wrong f.cking moron.... > > f.cking stupid photographers want image stabilization lenses -- even > > though the extra elements necessary to add this feature soak up light [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > less sharpness loss there than in handholding at low speed. As to light > loss it is negligeable. http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c012.html "You may need up to eight additional lens elements to create a potent IS ability. But these lens elements cause loss of transmission that can be compensated by the automatic exposure system, but then the advantage of the IS, compared to normal non-IS lenses, is less evident." > > f.cking stupid photographers want big-ratio zoom lenses -- even though > > these lenses suck [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Let's just say the rest of us are dynamic and have more range. EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG, a.shole. > Cheers, > Alan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over > >rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > former may be clicheed, but it does at least get one out into the fresh air. > The latter is just, well, sad. I spent all weekend out in the fresh air, thank you for your concern. > BTW, here's my latest waterfall picture for you to foam about. It even > includes some water running over rocks, and it was taken with a medium [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/NorthCreek.jpg> Velvia sucks. This image is one of billions of similar boring images. Could'nt you get Michael Jackson to dive over the falls? >> <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/NorthCreek.jpg> > >Velvia sucks. This image is one of billions of similar boring images. >Could'nt you get Michael Jackson to dive over the falls? I so glad you dislike the photo - it's almost like confirmation that I must have been doing something right. BTW, diving over a 1 foot high waterfall might prove tricky. YMMV. >BTW, here's my latest waterfall picture for you to foam about. It even >includes some water running over rocks, and it was taken with a medium [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ><http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/NorthCreek.jpg> Great shot Chris. Cooled off the room I'm sitting in about 20 degrees. Thanks, RP© >>BTW, here's my latest waterfall picture for you to foam about. It even >>includes some water running over rocks, and it was taken with a medium [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Great shot Chris. >Cooled off the room I'm sitting in about 20 degrees. Cooled me off when taking it, since I had to kneel in the river to take it. ;-) Nice. Cliche or not I do like well done wtaerfall photos. : >I don't take waterfalls, insects, time exposures of water running over : >rocks, trite infrared nudes, etc.... : [...] : >I'm here to tell photographers how stupid they are.... : You know, I'd far rather spend my time taking pictures of waterfalls than : spend it telling other people they're stupid on an Internet forum. The : former may be clicheed, but it does at least get one out into the fresh air. : The latter is just, well, sad. : BTW, here's my latest waterfall picture for you to foam about. It even : includes some water running over rocks, and it was taken with a medium : format camera, which you seem to detest, on Fujichrome Velvia, which I seem : to recall you regard as "sh.t". Should give you plenty of ammunition for : calling me stupid. I hope you hate it as much as you seem to want to: : <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/NorthCreek.jpg> SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- >Nice. Cliche or not I do like well done wtaerfall photos. Thanks. Was the first real outing of my Mamiya 7 as a serious hiking camera, and I must say it performed well. It also survived the concrete accidental-drop-test, although for some unknown reason the rangefinder now needs recalibrating. ;-) >I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks... When small children are being loud and obnoxious, it's pretty certain that they're seeking attention. You seem to be engaging in similar behaviour, so it would seem that you do care very much about what anyone else thinks, otherwise you wouldn't spend all your time here trying to provoke some sort of reaction. >>I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sort > of reaction. UC revels in his own image that he is "the most hated man on the Usenet." But he's wrong, he's not even the most irritating. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >UC revels in his own image that he is "the most hated man on the Usenet." >But he's wrong, he's not even the most irritating. Agreed. I'd say on a scale of 1 - 5 (5 being the most irritating), considerable cranium is a 1.75. He is far more inane than he is irritating. RP© - >UC revels in his own image that he is "the most hated man on the Usenet." I suspect you're right here - a legend in his own mind. >But he's wrong, he's not even the most irritating. There are people who excell at irritating people on Usenet. They tend to do this by posting large monologues, responding to people in depth, but never actually addressing any of their points, and they're tenacious. UC is tenacious, but he lacks the sheer staying power of the monologue poster - he mostly just swears at people a bit (I hesitate to even call them insults, as a real insult should demonstrate some wit). As a result, his ability to irritate is limited. There are people on Usenet who it would be bothersome to be called "stupid" by, but that's because the people in question are those whose opinions one has come to respect (mainly through not arbitrarilly calling people stuipd). UC isn't one of these people. Having said all that, the fact that we're even discussing this is probably giving him immense pleasure - even if it's not quite stroking his ego in the way he'd apparently like. Uraniumcommittee (AKA Michael Scarpitti) said: >Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what >anyone else thinks... Well, I'm sorry Michael, but even your simple act of posting this tripe means you DO care. It is attention-seeking, and anger, that you reveal. And it doesn't take a genius to see that when you *started* posting (refer numerous threads in rec.photo.darkroom, and rec.photo.technique.nature), you were relatively well-behaved, and not particularly foul-mouthed. The problem began to develop when your information was *so often wrong*. And the examples you posted, like this one: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1288 were so unbelievably bad (grainy, poor exposure/development, blocked shadows, jpeg artefacts, lousy composition, and dead-set *boring*..), that people saw through you - you simply have no talent. That really hurt your feelings, didn't it, Michael... It must have, because you then slowly degenerated into what you are today. Not really a troll (a troll would be more careful, and not leave so much poor photography evidence hanging around). You are just a sad, unwanted boy who no longer even tries to contribute, and just wants to try to hurt those who have spotted the sad reality of your complete lack of expertise. You are just a mouthy pretender, and your last resort is kindergarten level insults. Here endeth the psychiatry session.. Uraniumcommittee (AKA Michael Scarpitti) said: >Because I don't make clichés....and I don't give a damn what >anyone else thinks... Well, I'm sorry Michael, but even your simple act of posting this tripe means you DO care. It is attention-seeking, and anger, that you reveal. And it doesn't take a genius to see that when you *started* posting (refer numerous threads in rec.photo.darkroom, and rec.photo.technique.nature), you were relatively well-behaved, and not particularly foul-mouthed. The problem began to develop when your information was *so often wrong*. And the examples you posted, like this one: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1288 were so unbelievably bad (grainy, poor exposure/development, blocked shadows, jpeg artefacts, lousy composition, and dead-set *boring*..), that people saw through you - you simply have no talent. That really hurt your feelings, didn't it, Michael... It must have, because you then slowly degenerated into what you are today. Not really a troll (a troll would be more careful, and not leave so much poor photography evidence hanging around). You are just a sad, unwanted boy who no longer even tries to contribute, and just wants to try to hurt those who have spotted the sad reality of your complete lack of expertise. You are just a mouthy pretender, and your last resort is kindergarten level insults. Here endeth the psychiatry session.. ---------------------------------------- Careful...Tom Cruise KNOWS the history of psychiatry...and you don't! > Uraniumcommittee (AKA Michael Scarpitti) said: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ---------------------------------------- > Careful...Tom Cruise KNOWS the history of psychiatry...and you don't! This is my personal favorite of his... http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1255 Talk about a clichéd image. Underexposed, hat brim casting a shadow across a character filled face, hovering over a meager meal in a small diner. And he couldn't even be bothered to clean the neg or spot the print before scanning it. Actually, if there were more light on the hand holding the syrup, it wouldn't be a half bad image, but coming from someone who lays claim to perfection, it's a little hard to accept. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Image taken in 1968. My technique has improved in the last 37 years. Where are your images from 1968? > > Uraniumcommittee (AKA Michael Scarpitti) said: > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > syrup, it wouldn't be a half bad image, but coming from someone who lays > claim to perfection, it's a little hard to accept. Image taken in 1968. My technique has improved in the last 37 years. Where are your images from 1968? In a shoebox around here, somewhere. But I don't show images that old, 15 year olds tend to have a different outlook on things. You can't tell your technique has improved by anything on that site, by the way... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Uraniumcommittee (AKA Michael Scarpitti) said: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > were so unbelievably bad (grainy, poor exposure/development, blocked > shadows, jpeg artefacts, lousy composition, and dead-set *boring*..), That's a f.cking TEST, you moron! It says so right on the image text! Do you know what a TEST is, a.shole? > that people saw through you - you simply have no talent. That really > hurt your feelings, didn't it, Michael... It must have, because you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > longer even tries to contribute, and just wants to try to hurt those > who have spotted the sad reality of your complete lack of expertise. I don't give a flying f.ck what you think about my work. Why don't you link to my images that are not TESTS, a.shole? http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID40 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID86 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID50 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID39 > You are just a mouthy pretender, and your last resort is kindergarten > level insults. > > Here endeth the psychiatry session.. I like that last one. Man, you need to take a couple of bong hits or whatever and put down the eightball. > I like that last one. What are you talking about? > Man, you need to take a couple of bong hits or whatever and put down > the eightball. I liked the last photo that you linked up to. The one with the kid and the skateboard. Very nice. Oh, I see. Thanks. I doubted whether anyone would bother to look at them. The background of that one bothers me a bit. But if I lowered my position, I cannot see the skateboard from above, which I wanted to do. I wanted to be at normal eye-level on this, bexcause the kid is so small. > I liked the last photo that you linked up to. The one with the kid and > the skateboard. Very nice. To be honest the background fisheye distortion didn't even hit me until you mentioned it. What I really liked and concentrated on was the kid, skateboard, and shadow of the kid. It's the shadow that makes the picture for me. The trio makes a nice triangle. Personally I really like a shallow depth of field and would have *attempted* to keep the lens as open as possible, though it looks like it was a very bright afternoon. > To be honest the background fisheye distortion didn't even hit me until > you mentioned it. Not the distortion, but the buildings and other stuff. > What I really liked and concentrated on was the kid, > skateboard, and shadow of the kid. It's the shadow that makes the > picture for me. Precisely. That's why I had to shoot from up high, rather than low. > The trio makes a nice triangle. Precisely. You understand what I was attmpting to accomplish. > Personally I really > like a shallow depth of field and would have *attempted* to keep the > lens as open as possible, though it looks like it was a very bright > afternoon. I needed a little depth of field to get the shadow in focus. I think this was at about f/5,6. Composing shots like this is always difficult and unpredictable. You don't know how far he's going to come. I was very happy with how symmetrical everything came out. It could probably use just a bit of cropping on the bottom. Yeah, there is a little too much dead space up front, but like you noted, nothing that a little cropping can't help. You ever shoot in color or is that like sacreliege to you? > Yeah, there is a little too much dead space up front, but like you > noted, nothing that a little cropping can't help. > > You ever shoot in color or is that like sacreliege to you? Yes, I do, but only Kodachrome for serious work. I intend to post some of them at the Ilford site. Sounds good. I attempted slides myself, but I like the lee-way that negatives give me. The canon scanner I'm using does a pretty decent job with negs anyway, which are cheaper and faster to develop. I might as well call it what it is: Laziness. Har. You're one of the fewer people I've "seen" (exchanged posts on the internet) use kodak over fuji. >Oh, I see. Thanks. I doubted whether anyone would bother to look at >them. I went to see them, but my screen doesn't show B/W prints very well... I would love to see the originals! I used to use Ilford film all of the time and have some very nice 'velvety smooth' prints. I can just imagine how yours are. >I like that last one. > >Man, you need to take a couple of bong hits or whatever and put down >the eightball. Cheers! >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 ...a man on a bike, composed just like the textbook tells one how to compose "action shots". >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1586 ...a picture of parallel lines >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1550 ...generic urban "gritty", the sort of thing you see hanging in the lobbies of companies who want to show that they're "with it". >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539 ...another textbook "action shot" composition. Thanks for posting those - it's now apparent why you feel qualified to comment on cliches in photography. Haha, I guess the olive branches were already extended and rejected before mine eh? Sorry, I'm a little late in the game. Actually I rather like these shots. Scarpetti may be annoying *and* educated way beyond his intelligence but the shots are rather nice. Keep shootin Mike, but please stop trying to convince us how smart you (allegedly) are. RP© >Actually I rather like these shots. >Scarpetti may be annoying *and* educated way beyond his intelligence >but the shots are rather nice. They're not bad photos, the last action one in particular is pretty well done, but they are all pretty much straight out of the textbook. I just find it amusing that he sees fit to accuse others of cliched photography when these 4 examples of his work, selected by him, are all straight out of the rule book. See: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1492 (Grainy, dark quality deliberate. Compare: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1309) > >Actually I rather like these shots. > >Scarpetti may be annoying *and* educated way beyond his intelligence [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > these 4 examples of his work, selected by him, are all straight out of the > rule book. >See: > >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329 How on earth did you manage to make soccer players look queer? Is it some kind of portfolio you are working on? -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > >See: > > > >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329 > > How on earth did you manage to make soccer players look queer? High-school boys. My friend's son was playing that day. High-school kids are still somewhat slender. Is that what you are referring to? > Is it some kind of portfolio you are working on? Not exactly, no. > -- > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >> >See: >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >High-school boys. My friend's son was playing that day. High-school >kids are still somewhat slender. Is that what you are referring to? Possibly that... and the stiff arms / limp wrists. I think it's a timing thing... either that, or, you know, they bat the other way. :-) -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Possibly that... and the stiff arms / limp wrists. I think it's a > timing thing... either that, or, you know, they bat the other way. Huh? They're running full speed after the ball....Their arms are flailing. They're both tall and slender... > :-) > > -- > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >> Possibly that... and the stiff arms / limp wrists. I think it's a >> timing thing... either that, or, you know, they bat the other way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >They're running full speed after the ball....Their arms are flailing. >They're both tall and slender... A girl who looks less 'girly'.... http://www.ragincajuns.com/soccer/images/meredith-smith-action.jpg Even though the guy behind seems to be checking out the completion's rear end, but both appear to maintain their machoness in the pose.. http://www.gobucsgo.com/teams/mens-soccer/images/action/lari.jpg More girls, no limp wrists... http://www.acrss.org/ict/soccer/photos/carney/P107PAAL.JPG Another couple of girls, still no limp wrists... http://www.soccer-ri.com/2002RIRegionals/images/GJ6.jpg http://www.soccer-ri.com/2002RIRegionals/images/GJ12.jpg Basically, if I was either of those two lads in your picture, I wouldn't be happy with the way it makes me look. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga In all your photos, the ball is close by the players, who are not running full-speed. In the one I posted, the boys are running, rather than playing the ball. That's why their arms are the way they are. > >> Possibly that... and the stiff arms / limp wrists. I think it's a > >> timing thing... either that, or, you know, they bat the other way. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga Sheesh! What a let down! Here I thought I was finally going to get some good sex and it turns out just to be someone calling us names. I don't think that's fair... Steve Kramer "PhotoEnvisions" Freelance Photography Chiang Mai, Thailand http://www.photoenvisions.com Signature"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.